8. Griffin, M.A., & Neal, A., 2000. Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347 -- 358.
9. Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., & Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34, 99 -- 109.
10. Hechanova-Alampay, R.H., & Beehr, T.A., 2001. Empowerment, span of control and safety performance in work teams after workforce reduction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 275 -- 282.
11. Kaminski, M., 2001. Unintended consequences: Organizational practices and their impact on workplace safety and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 127 -- 138.
Turner, N., & Parker, S.K., 2004. The effect of teamwork on safety processes and outcomes. In J. Barling & M.R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 35 -- 62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. Section 6: Timetable of Activity. You should complete the GANTT chart below.
Part-time students will undertake the dissertation over 30 weeks, full-time students over 18 weeks.
Make sure you know your final hand-in date.
It may make sense to work backwards from that.
(You may wish to alter this timetable of activity to reflect your activity over weeks rather than months -- this is entirely up to you.)
Task
Month 1
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Scheme briefing
Taught support
Complete proposal
Submit proposal
Allocated supervisor
Contact supervisor
Literature review
Methodology chapter
Data collection
Data analysis
Findings chapter
Discussion chapter
Conclusion
Recommendations
Introduction
Abstract
Complete first draft
Rewrites
Complete final draft
Printing / binding
Submission
Section 7: Ethical considerations. Explain what implications your primary research may have regarding ethical issues. This section is designed to ensure that ethical issues in your proposed research have been fully considered. The following questions are based on University guidelines and should be answered in full by ticking either Yes, No, or not applicable (N/A).
Question
Yes
No
N/A
1. Does the aim and method of your research respect the independence of your participants?
2. Are measures in place to ensure confidentiality for participants?
3. Are participants clearly asked to give consent...
Can participants withdraw at any time if they chose?
If you ticked NO to any of the above questions, you should indicate below how you intend to address these ethical concerns.
Question
Yes
No
N/A
5. Do the objectives of your research lead participants to break confidentiality or otherwise engage in deceit?
6. Will your respondents be in a position where they might feel coerced into taking part in the research?
7. Will the data be used in ways not fully explained to the participants or respondents?
8. Is your research at all likely to cause physical or psychological harm or stress to participants?
9. Is the impartiality of the research at risk of being compromised by dependence upon the support of a particular sponsor or organization?
If you ticked YES to any of the above questions, you should indicate below how you intend to address these ethical concerns.
Section 8: Please select proposed subject area by ticking the box below:
Accounting & Finance
Strategy
Professional Effectiveness & CPD
Marketing
HRM & Organisational behaviour
Enterprise / Economic Development & Leisure / Tourism
Purchasing and supply
Business information systems
Section 9: Student Signature
I declare that the above questions have been answered correctly, and that if ethical issues emerge in the course of my research then I will notify my supervisor immediately.
Student Name (Print):
PART C: MARKER'S FEEDBACK
All marks are subject to confirmation by the Board of Examiners
Identification of topic area (@ 250 words)
Acceptable
Unacceptable: requires more focus
Unacceptable: requires more explanation
Unacceptable topic
Comment (where necessary):
Identification of aim (@ 50 words)
Acceptable
Unacceptable: requires more focus
Unacceptable: requires more clarity
Unacceptable: not suitable for award
Comment (where necessary):
An initial literature review (@ 1,000 words)
Acceptable
Unacceptable: lacks quality
Unacceptable: lacks depth
Unacceptable: requires more clarity
Poor referencing
Comment (where necessary):
An initial research method assessment (@ 200 words)
Acceptable
Unacceptable: lacks quality
Unacceptable: lacks depth
Unacceptable: requires more clarity
Poor referencing
Comment (where necessary):
Lecturer's signature:
Second marker:
Mark awarded:
